Matthew 12:40 Using Common Idiomatic Language?

You ask for examples in which the Bible uses the phrase three days and three nights when only 36 hours are involved. You also want examples where three days and three nights is derived from a small portion of daylight on one day and one full day; plus, two nights You won't find it.
The word "and" in three days and three nights prevents the amount of time being anything less than 72 hours.
Most young kids know that three days and three nights require three periods of dark and three periods of light Look at Gen chapter one.
I don't: know of anyone who who leaves late on Friday and plans to return on Sunday who would use the term. "I'll be back in three days and three nights. It's absurd
The word "and" (Kai) is a copulative/cumulative force. It unites/joins what comes after with what comes before. Furthermore, Kai means plus; also; both; in addition; and, etc....
So (houto) in verse 40 (for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; So (houto) shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth
Houto simply means "in this way/ manner; referring to what precedes or follows.
Read Mat 12:38-40 very, very carefully. The sign offered as proof that Jesus was the Messiah was not the resurrection; although, this was the culmination of it.
The actual sign was the amount of time that He would remain the tomb. If He did not remain in the tomb for three days and three nights, by His own admission , He is to be dismissed as our saviorMat 27:63 and Mark 8:31 states that Jesus would rise "after" (meta) three days. Meta denotes accomplishment and sequence. The entire three days had to be completed (accomplished) before Christmas would rise.
Christ rose exactly at the very second that three days was ending. A mere second longer would not have been on the third day.

You ask for examples in which the Bible uses the phrase three days and three nights when only 36 hours are involved. You also want examples where three days and three nights is derived from a small portion of daylight on one day and one full day; plus, two nights You won't find it.
The word "and" in three days and three nights prevents the amount of time being anything less than 72 hours.
Most young kids know that three days and three nights require three periods of dark and three periods of light Look at Gen chapter one.
I don't: know of anyone who who leaves late on Friday and plans to return on Sunday who would use the term. "I'll be back in three days and three nights. It's absurd
The word "and" (Kai) is a copulative/cumulative force. It unites/joins what comes after with what comes before. Furthermore, Kai means plus; also; both; in addition; and, etc....
So (houto) in verse 40 (for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; So (houto) shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth
Houto simply means "in this way/ manner; referring to what precedes or follows.
Read Mat 12:38-40 very, very carefully. The sign offered as proof that Jesus was the Messiah was not the resurrection; although, this was the culmination of it.
The actual sign was the amount of time that He would remain the tomb. If He did not remain in the tomb for three days and three nights, by His own admission , He is to be dismissed as our saviorMat 27:63 and Mark 8:31 states that Jesus would rise "after" (meta) three days. Meta denotes accomplishment and sequence. The entire three days had to be completed (accomplished) before Christmas would rise.
Christ rose exactly at the very second that three days was ending. A mere second longer would not have been on the third day.

candle2,I'm afraid your comments deal with issues for a different topic. This one is concerned with one issue and only one issue:1. The Messiah said that three nights would be involved with His time in the "heart of the earth".2. There are some who believe that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week with the resurrection taking place on the 1st day of the week.3. Of those, there are some who believe that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb.4. However, those two beliefs allow for only 2 nights to be involved.5. To account for the discrepancy, some of the above say that the Messiah was using common figure of speech/colloquial language of the time, i.e., that it is was common to forecast or say that a day or a night would be involved with an event when no part of the day or no part of the night could occur.6. In order for someone to legitimately say that it was common, they would have to know of more that 1 example to make that assertion.
I am simply wondering if anyone who falls in the above category might provide examples to support the idea of commonality? Edited by rstrats, : No reason given.

What's your basic argument in your own words? Why do you accept the explanation that you believe and reject the critics? Don't be a troll now...stick around and have a discussion. (I'm off to work...be back later)

Hi PhatJust a couple of comments. I contend that the Bible is fairly clear that Jesus went into Jerusalem and inevitably the cross on the faith that this was the vocation and role that He was to fulfill. I don't believe that He had supernatural knowledge of what was going to happen to Him.Yes He died and was buried. He said that He would be underground, (dead) for three days and then that God would somehow act to vindicate Him. In this passage, but not in Matthew 16:21 He mentions Jonah in the fish for 3 days. In the Matthew 16 verse He talks about rising on the 3rd day. I think that the rising is a fairly obvious reference to Daniel 7 with the rising of the Son of Man who is presented to the Ancient of Days and given dominion over the Kingdom. As for the 3 days, even though He spoke about Jonah I think it actually goes back further to Moses coming down the mountain after 3 days.I think that presents the best explanation for what Jesus has said in those verses. Remember His faith was derived from the Scriptures and from prayer and it is His faith and belief that somehow God would vindicate Him and His message based on those Scriptures. The resurrection was how God the Father ,to whom Jesus prayed, responded.

Phat,
re: "What's your basic argument in your own words?"It's a good thing you specified that my response should be in my own words because otherwise I probably would be putting it in someone else's words. So in my own words, as far as I know, I've only made 3 arguments (if they can be called that):1. That so far no one has provided any examples which show that it was common to forecast or say that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could have occurred,2. That to assert that the Messiah was employing common figure of speech/colloquial language, the asserter would have to know of examples in order to legitimately make the assertion of commonality.3. That most of the replies have dealt with issues for a different topic.re: "Why do you accept the explanation that you believe and reject the critics?"I've read your question over several times and I'm afraid I don't understand it. Could you rephrase it?Edited by rstrats, : No reason given.Edited by rstrats, : No reason given.

GDR,
re: "Just a couple of comments."Just so you understand that your comments deal with issues for a different topic.

I suggest that it is germane as I was making the point that the whole day and night thing is irrelevant. Jesus was not speaking with supernatural knowledge but was simply speaking as to His belief that God the Father would vindicate Him. Then I explained where He likely would have come up with the 3 days prediction. It doesn't matter whether or not it was a day or two either way. Ultimately God did vindicate His life and message.I agree though that I did go beyond that point.

Sure. Looking back through this topic of yours, I see your prime motivation. jar brings up the point of "so what"? Basically, he was answering your question by agreeing with you that there likely was no example of common Jewish idiomatic speech. So I guess my question is why keep the topic going? There are no members who will counter your assertion. My basic question is what now? Where is the topic going? What are the implications if your argument is true? Do you believe that the Bible is in any way inerrant, reliable, or accurate in its claims? If your three points can be accepted, what is your ending conclusion? (I will compliment you though for hanging in there with EvC for over three years! )

GDR,
re: "I suggest that it is germane as I was making the point that the whole day and night thing is irrelevant."I've considered your suggestion and have come to the same conclusion as before, i.e., that it is an issue for a different topic. This one is concerned with one issue and only one issue:1. The Messiah said that three nights would be involved with His time in the "heart of the earth".2. There are some who believe that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week with the resurrection taking place on the 1st day of the week.3. Of those, there are some who believe that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb or at the earliest to the moment when His spirit left His body.4. However, those two beliefs allow for only 2 nights to be involved.5. To account for the discrepancy, some of the above say that the Messiah was using common figure of speech/colloquial language of the time, i.e., that it is was common to forecast or say that a day or a night would be involved with an event when no part of the day or no part of the night could occur.6. In order for someone to legitimately say that it was common, they would have to know of more that 1 example to make that assertion.I am simply wondering if anyone in the above category knows of examples to support the idea of commonality?

Well gee, who'd have thought that a discussion with people who are trying to justify their belief in an invisible entity would get bogged down in triviality. Go figure.

Phat,
re: "Sure. Looking back through this topic of yours, I see your prime motivation.From what you've written I don't think that you do.re: "jar brings up the point of 'so what'?"That's an issue for a different topic.re: " Basically, he was answering your question by agreeing with you that there likely was no example of common Jewish idiomatic speech."He couldn't have been agreeing with me because I never said that.re: "So I guess my question is why keep the topic going?"Because there is always the possibility that someone new may visit this topic.re: "What are the implications if your argument [assertion] is true?"My assertion is that for someone to say that the Messiah was employing common figure of speech/colloquial language, then the person would have to know of examples in order to legitimately make the assertion of commonality. So if that is true, then it's more than an implication - it's a fact.re: "Do you believe that the Bible is in any way inerrant, reliable, or accurate in its claims?"I have no belief one way or the other with regard to your question. It is, howerver, an issue for a different topic.re: "If your three points can be accepted, what is your ending conclusion?"That my curiosity would be satisfied with regard to the commonality of forecasting or saying that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could have occurred.re: "I will compliment you though for hanging in there with EvC for over three years!"Thanks. I kinda pride myself with having the patience ability. Edited by rstrats, : No reason given.

Its time you learned how to format better posts. Below is a reprint of your reply to me with formatting included. Press the peek button to see what I did.

quote:

---

Phat writes:

​

"Sure. Looking back through this topic of yours, I see your prime motivation.

From what you've written I don't think that you do.

​

Phat writes:

​

"jar brings up the point of 'so what'?"

​

That's an issue for a different topic.

​

Phat writes:

​

" Basically, he was answering your question by agreeing with you that there likely was no example of common Jewish idiomatic speech."

​

He couldn't have been agreeing with me because I never said that.

​

"So I guess my question is why keep the topic going?"

​

Because there is always the possibility that someone new may visit this topic.

​

"What are the implications if your argument [assertion] is true?"

​

My assertion is that for someone to say that the Messiah was employing the common figure of speech/colloquial language, then the person would have to know of examples in order to legitimately make the assertion of commonality. So if that is true, then it's more than an implication - it's a fact.

​

"Do you believe that the Bible is in any way inerrant, reliable, or accurate in its claims?"

​

I have no belief one way or the other with regard to your question. It is, however, an issue for a different topic.

​

"If your three points can be accepted, what is your ending conclusion?"

​

That my curiosity would be satisfied with regard to the commonality of forecasting or saying that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could have occurred.

​

Phat writes:

​

"I will compliment you though for hanging in there with EvC for over three years!"

​

Thanks. I kinda pride myself with having the patience ability.

---

The very essence of your question concerns "time." To assume that 3 days & 3 nights is equal to 1 day and 2 nights takes a leap of faith.I would gladly go out of my way to find examples (assuming there are any), if you show me why you or anyone else refuse to believe what Matthew so clearly stated

I think that the truth should be defended. The resurrection is the only reason that Sunday is held in such high esteem, but what if the resurrection was not on Siunday?Sunday keepers outnumber Sabbath keepers twenty to one. I would think that a Sunday keeper would want to defend his belief.People attack Matthew's words. They try to twist them to fit their own agenda.I am simply saying that Matthew recorded exactly what he meant, and I will defend himThere is no reason to be mad at me. After all, this is a discussion board. And, I have not tried to offend anyone.